Bob Woodward said this evening on CNN that a "very senior person" at the White House warned him in an email that he would "regret doing this," the same day he has continued to slam President Barack Obama over the looming forced cuts known as the sequester.

CNN host Wolf Blitzer said that the network invited a White House official to debate Woodward on-air, but the White House declined.

"I think they're confused," Woodward said of the White House's pushback on his reporting.

Politico: "The Woodward reporting has caused the White House spin machine to sputter at a crucial time. The president was running around the country, campaign-style, warning that Republicans were at fault for the massive cuts set to hit Friday. What Obama never says: it was his own staff that proposed sequestration, and the tax hikes he now proposes – aimed at replacing half of the cuts — were never part of that very specific plan."

The White House instead has, with great success, fudged the facts. The administration has convinced a majority of the country that Republicans are more to blame by emphasizing that Republicans voted for the plan. Which they did — after Obama conceived it."

“You’re focusing on a few specific trees that give a very wrong impression of the forest. But perhaps we will just not see eye to eye here. … I think you will regret staking out that claim.”

Now, aside from the fact that the statement is in an email TO A REPORTER and was sent from an offical WH email, WHICH IS PUBLIC RECORD I find the sensationalism of this supposed threat to be hilarious. Whats the threat? The official expressed his difference of opinion and obviously beleives Woodward will end up on the wrong side of the issue.

I wouldn't read too much into this. Woodward certainly doesn't seem intimidated and these kinds of back and forth exchanges between administrations and media have been going for well over a hundred years.

âÂÂYouâÂÂre focusing on a few specific trees that give a very wrong impression of the forest. But perhaps we will just not see eye to eye here. âÂ¦ I think you will regret staking out that claim.âÂÂ

Now, aside from the fact that the statement is in an email TO A REPORTER and was sent from an offical WH email, WHICH IS PUBLIC RECORD I find the sensationalism of this supposed threat to be hilarious. Whats the threat? The official expressed his difference of opinion and obviously beleives Woodward will end up on the wrong side of the issue.

Tell Woodward

He should already know, he responded to the "threatening" email thusly:

Gene: You do not ever have to apologize to me. You get wound up because you are making your points and you believe them. This is all part of a serious discussion. I for one welcome a little heat; there should more given the importance. I also welcome your personal advice. I am listening. I know you lived all this. My partial advantage is that I talked extensively with all involved. I am traveling and will try to reach you after 3 pm today. Best, Bob

I don't know about you or anyone else, but my tone is going to be slightly different if I am talking to someone I feel threatened me. But beyond the actual issue, I think Woodward is doing some self promotion and positioning himself as the little guy when all that seems to have happened is he had a heated discussion with someone who disagreed with his take on the particulars of the sequester and whether or not revenue was part of the package or if Obama is actually moving the goalposts in a bid to create a quid pro quo.

This has not been a good week for President Obama’s campaign to use $44 billion in automatic spending cuts as leverage to force Republicans to vote for higher taxes. First, legendary journalist Bob Woodward dismantled the White House’s account of how the sequester was created. Now, Woodward is telling Politico that the White House responded by threatening him if he went forward with his claim.

Then Education Secretary Arne Duncan was caught in a baldfaced lie about the sequester causing teacher layoffs. On Face the Nation last Sunday Duncan told CBS, “As many as 40,000 teachers could lose their jobs. … There are literally teachers now who are getting pink slips, who are getting notices that they can’t come back this fall.” But when pressed to identify which teachers are “literally” getting pink slips right now, Duncan could only name one country in West Virginia. And when The Washington Post followed up with the director of federal programs for that county, she said that while five to six teachers were being laid off, those layoffs had nothing to do with the sequester. In fact, they were caused by a previous White House decision to cut funding for ineffective Head Start programs.

Now newspapers across the country are all running stories directly refuting Obama’s “sky is falling” Chicken Little act. The Associated Press reported yesterday that, “President Barack Obama and his officials are doing their best to drum up public concern over the shock wave of spending cuts that could strike the government in just days. So it’s a good time to be alert for sky-is-falling hype.” And Reuters reports today, “The actual amount of savings is much less – $43 billion in the current fiscal year, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That’s because federal agencies don’t spend all of the money they are allocated in any given fiscal year. A $1 billion aircraft carrier, for example, may take years to build.”

When the sun rises on Saturday morning and House Republicans will still have not agreed to new tax hikes, Obama will be forced to step up his sequestration pressure campaign. He will do everything possible to maximize the pain caused by the sequester and dramatize the efforts. Thanks to Duncan, Republicans now have a strong response: the White House is lying about the sequester and Obama’s ability to minimize sequestration’s effects.

The sooner Obama realizes he has lost, signs a continuing resolution making the sequester permanent, and moves on to the rest of his agenda, the better it will be for him.

Only idiots believe he was threatened. The proof is in black and white text, there was no threat. He even responded to the "threatening" email stating that the WH aide didn't need to apologize for his earlier remarks and then Woodward advised that he would try to call the WH aide when he was free later that day. He made no mention of the "threat" in his email response, but then he runs to the media to complain the WH is trying to intimidate him? Its nonsense.